This case was written for use in educational leadership programs preparing superintendents, central office leaders, and school principals. This case requires students to draw from knowledge of successful school turnaround, effective school leadership, and system-wide reform strategies to consider how a first year superintendent and a newly hired principal implement turnaround strategies in a persistently low-performing school amid increasing pressure and scrutiny from the surrounding business and civic community. The case begins with the history and context of the community and school district and then explores the significant events and challenges during the first year of implementation.
AlexanderD.LewisL. (2014). Condition of America’s public school facilities: 2012-2013. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
2.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. S. (2011). The ebb and flow of social network ties between district leaders under high-stakes accountability. American Education Research Journal, 48(1), 39-79.
3.
DeeT. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (Working paper). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
4.
DukeD. L. (2012). Tinkering and turnarounds: Understanding the contemporary campaign to improve low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17, 9-24.
5.
FinniganK. S. (2012). Principal leadership in low-performing schools: A closer look through the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44, 183-202.
6.
FullanM. (2009). Introduction to the challenge of change: Purposeful action at work. In FullanM. (Ed.), The challenge of change: Start school improvement now! (pp. 1-8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
7.
FullanM. (2010). The role of the district in tri level reform. International Encyclopedia of Education, 6, 295-302.
8.
GarzaE.Jr.DrysdaleL.GurrD.JacobsonS.MerchantB. (2014). Leadership for school success: Lessons from effective principals. International Journal of Educational Management, 28, 798-811.
9.
GoldringR.TaieS. (2014). Principal attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012-2013 principal follow-up survey. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
10.
GoldringR.TaieS.RiddlesM. (2014). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2012-2013 teacher follow-up survey. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
11.
HermanR.DawsonP.DeeT.GreeneJ.MaynardR.ReddingS. (2008). Turning around chronically lower performing schools: IES practice guide. Washington, DC: The Institute of Education Sciences.
12.
HochbeinC. (2012). Relegation and reversion: Longitudinal analysis of school turnaround and decline. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17, 92-107.
13.
LeithwoodK. (2005). Understanding successful principal leadership: Progress on a broken front. Journal of Education Administration, 43, 619-629.
14.
LeithwoodK.AzahV. N. (2017). Characteristics of high-performing districts. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16, 27-53.
15.
MascallB.LeithwoodK. (2010). Investing in leadership: The district’s role in managing principal turnover. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9, 367-383.
16.
MendelsP. (2012). The effective principal. Learning Forward, 33(1), 54-58.
17.
MeyersC. V.Hambrick HittD. (2017). School turnaround principals: What does initial research literature suggest they are doing to be successful?Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 22, 38-56.
18.
MeyersC. V.SmylieM. A. (2017). Five myths of school turnaround policy and practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16, 502-523.
19.
MurphyJ. (2010). Turning around failing organizations: Insights for educational leaders. Journal of Educational Change, 11, 157-176.
20.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6319 (2002).
21.
PapayJ. P.Bacher-HicksA.PageL. C.MarinellW. H. (2017). The challenge of teacher retention in urban schools: Evidence of variation from a cross-site analysis. Educational Researcher, 48, 434-448.
22.
PeckC.ReitzugU. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as new reform. Urban Education, 49, 8-38.
23.
PlayerD.KatzV. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116, 675-698.
24.
SunM.PennerE. K.LoebS. (2017). Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of school improvement grants. American Education Research Journal, 54, 607-643.
25.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Guidance on fiscal year 2010 School Improvement Grants. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
26.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). School improvement grants: Implementation and effectiveness. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
